womola ca complainist agat'ist Dieamwork for restigsion of an Construction ae ageament at ‘ORDER OF ST. THOMAS MOREacral are Pett 1 pm els HONS PRR al Ceo SET ceed lacts and sues sila or intimately elated such thatin the resolution becom Sete ann icensteveanisbcttton teameneae os are need wold neces be dterne. nother word, phate respondent cred ht the eM eat ore pred oppose the suspension ofthe peceengin the min epost pension oh cern te inal nthe gerd a ters eat awn vecksion of the contract upon which the Bouncing checks were issued ls a separate and distinct issue from the 4 fe responden ated 8 22; nd (2) Secon 7, Rul LL ofthe Pls of Cou tates tat one ofthe cements of ¢ ive red the patton te asthe Spether ea ial question fs that ger rr aco’ ta, th elements mig Nscase the cml avn rnd thei ese, Te WIN PeUdical gestion scr hah oeessitaks te fg Ccimna “ i 2 ) Baia eek adap eb tS Ce Aol H No, Were ts pRyudcol Qestion ths ptt must be granted. Th el action most precede the lig ofthe criminal zcton fra prejual question to exist The 2 pola peel ueston ae consined in Rule 15, Se 5, which tates: SEC. 5. Elements of prejuicla! question, — The two (2) essential elements ofa prejuilcuestion ae: (a) the ci sefon involves an sue similar or intimately related to the sue raised inthe criminal action; and (b) the resolution of itch hove determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed urt has held in numerous cases thatthe element of a prejudicial question, s stated inthe above-quotedprovson and in ool, ae: The rationale behind the pine of prejudicial question isto avid two conflicting decison. It has two essential serine action aves an ses or inmate ete toh se raedin the imal acon ae (the reselaon er ave determine wheter rot the criminal ato may Froe=e sececnbe 2, he 200 ules on rial Procedure ROWE Bef athe abe prvon wesameniedby 8:7, {Tai wi apes teen roves SEC 7. element of prejucica question —The elements of preudal questin ae: (he previous instuted deere ante smarorntimetey related tthe ies ralsd Inthe subsequent criminal action, and (2) he sate of such sue getermines whether or notte criminal action may proceed. preamwork: Seo 7(A) oF RULE IN| ve te east the tation wherein a party woud belatedly ila ci the proceedings inthe ate. Joniola 3 Art oF Ciyl C nite bn hich roves: sr Ped cvrone eh mst ve tay cil oseasion may Id i foun ch the supreme E20 sal rm eben shall be govern the provisions of this Code. stood inlaw as that which must precede th criminal ation and wich requires 2 unde the amendment 2 prelude question is under ede he amen recat cane rencered inthe criminal acon wth which sald question fs closely connected The cl action Spec muted porto the nsttuton ofthe cin action. Tae Set Ge SUSEMTIOR & On Mitcpretanon Mat wosd Watmonne CON Prvisuns See of Rule 111 ofthe Rls oF ak hus the fatranvP ueston and thus, suspend a criminal case, it is, pttloner argues s specially to ction that is elated toa pending criminal action inorder to lay Inthe instant case, Art. 35 ofthe Ci Code an ‘thc ahrase "prevously isthuted cl action” in Se, 7 of Rule 21115 platy worded ant 15 rot eons The dause "before any criminal prosecution may be instituted or may proceed” in At. 36 ofthe (4 Code may, however, be interpreted to mean thet the Ws se Cil Code that should gover In order to give eect rncipes of tattory construction, ts this Interpretation of At. ces present in the instant case indicate that the fling of the {bel the relevant provisions of Taw. bears pointing aut that the cca Sil acon andthe tenon fhe presence o 2 proj aleten a EG ee OTN nmol PLOCLINGS = ineNtUA, mn va ACIOF SER Aas iS ke Sete actin, Ne seroma be eu js the suspen Jedings in the criminal case Pe a Thus, such rule cannot apply tothe present controversy. aaa ne eam that ifthe contruction agreement between the parties deca nll ard vid for wart of enon, he hes sued eacerton ef sch artnet wel bere mere as ‘of paper and eannot be the bas of 8 inal prosecution, nN ‘THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF ST. THOMESMORErn sai Relatone Transcron Ay yaa. alae ceil the fact that there exists 9 ald contract or agreement o support ae ereement to support the lsuance ofthe checks or thatthe checks wer Issued foe osctn gos ot rae e emen of e ce,T s Se fs : oo 763 SCRA 436 1c1s.0n 2 Ocobet 200; it CHS Pimentel y ican erate respondent a ed ele a sR we ‘eed to Branch 223 (RTC Quezon Cty). ent Fry ved smn to appar plo yan 72 (RTC Anta or on ral a rf Cl se No 1-735 (Mario hy eto Pete fr Dec aton of Muy ef Aismage under Section 36 ofthe Family Code onthe ground of peyhologiaincapacy. (on 11 February 2005, - fore the RTC Quezon Cy on the ground of the caste ualetenPetloer sees a se the en the offender and the Weim isa Key element in paride, the ote would havea beating inthe criminal eas fed agalnst him before the ATC Quezon City RIC 2. ccummal cae is He iMjUTIeS suctanedl tay Ie erin ee a 0 Si aN SG SHSANE fy Spon teas 3 warrants the suspension ofthe criminal ase Before I RIC Quezon Cy te mon ‘patitioner filed s motion for reconsideration. in its 22 August 2005 Order, | pred naan, rete ed pete fr certo wn ppnow of pe emer reroing order eee the tart of Appecls, asaing the 13 May 2005 and 22 August 2005 Orders ofthe ATC Quezon Ch. CA ~ cismy paunoy ses 20 March 2006 Decision, The Court of Appeals red tht inthe elma! ease for we Jed purde the save s wheter the offender commenced the commision othe rime of paride del by over acts arch tor perform all the acts of execution by reason of some eause or accident other than is own spontaneous desistance. On the other Pease isse in the el action for annulment of mariage Is whether pettoner ls psychalglealy incapacitated to comply withthe ota! moital oblgetors. The Court of Appeals ule th be declared Antipolo is not 2 vei aimin 2 ety nar JOVI Ire Wich , HE alheoed acks we A ae Oo Bere ett pel am, OO OFS SOSH Ye Come of Frustrated parricde Nad already bee committed tut; ether or not the resolution 6 the action for annulment of marge Is prejudice question that warrants the suspension of Sect cave for tate paride agent pttioner. : 2 Whe CF ANE COMMISSION OF We Crime (HE manage € GU Dbsshr, iO PREJUDICIAL QUESTION - Sectan 7, Rule 123 ofthe 2000 ules on Criminal Procedure provides: ‘Section 7. Elements of Prejudicial Question. - The elements of a prejuccal question are: a} the previously instituted civil Seton Involves an issue similar or intimately related tothe issue raised in the subsequent criminal acton.an(t) the resolution of sch ssue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. | There is clear that the ch ation must be instituted first before the filing of the eiminal ation In this case, the Informion for rusted Pari was dated 30 August 2008 twas rafled to RTC Quezon Cy on 25 October 2008 as per the stamped date of receipt tn the information. The RTC Quezon City se Criminal Case No. Q-04-130415 for pretial and tral on 16 February 2005, Petitioner was ‘ned summans in Cl Case No. 04-7392 on 7 February 2005. Respondert’s petition in Chil Case No. 04-7392 was dated 4 November 204 and was fled on 5 November 2004. Clearly, the chil ease fr annulment was fled after the fing ofthe criminal case for frustrated Fare. A such, the requirement of Section 7, Rule 111 ofthe 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure was not met since the cil action was fled subsequent to thefllng ofthe criminal action. Further, the resolution of the civil action is not a prejudicial question that would warrant the suspension of the criminal action. a ‘THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF ST. THOMAS MORE aa ———_—an amt Relate Trani pea posse — ry. ty al gies rete questo when clacton nda criminal action are both penn, an thereensts inthe ciation nue which ee eemplvey resolved fore the criminal ation may rece beeaue Rowscever the ise nsdn the Ct acon resold wi ee cseminve fhe il nocence oT he cusedn he cnr ase Apr questen ened sexx one that arisesin a case the resolution of which is 2 logeal antecedent ofthe sue involved there, andthe cognizance of hich petals to another tribunal It is a question based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately sehnected with i that It determines the ult or innocence ofthe accused, and for i to suspend the criminal action, it must ‘Spposrnot only that said case Involves facts intimataly rolted to those upon which the eriminal prosecution would be based at is bch punishes any person "who shall er mother of Chi whether lgtimat or Hegtimate, or any of hi ascendant or descen use." The relationship in offenceran¢ the vcim distinguishes the crime of paricide from murder or homicide. " between nthe cil case for annulment of mariage under Article 36 of the Family Code is whether petitioner is psychologically vtated to comply wth the essential marital obligations. The issue in parcde ls whether the accused hile the vitim. inthis case, hanged with frustrated pare, the issue is whether he performed all the acts of execution which would have jondent asa consequence but which, nevertheless, did not pradue it by reason of causes independent of petitioner's will At The subsequent isolation of thelr mariage, petition Civil Case No. 02-7392 Is granted, wil have no effect onthe alleged erme that was committed atthe time of the the sue i ic fe pstioner was c ie res te ‘Rbsstence ofthe mariage. in sh Toren F MIAME % ANNE , Joseitto Copied Nl we Crummaliy Nawe sine of HE] eee Sottorarsretance Teneo our of Spook eth ude cekaaton ot the Put f= marrage on the tga eapoty taco th ata ocala te mariage slr atv btween the pie Ta eer theta a Tenebrae effet ofthe dal ecaraton of mult ofa teand or rubseqent mariage oo the cr pao eaacy onc ial bly fr gr. Tee ws set pl ution ace Secord the wo et cnre thas iexxn region win into the ow te tat sucha arog, athouph vl ob hit, may it coe a crsegaencs fa he Cou aed ints ae tats delration of the ny of the secard mariage onthe re frselogalicapacty wel about ne moment istrsthe Sa’ pall aeconere” hone OF the COMmicaon of Me alleged crime, be wos SM macned + respawn niet th organs. the Court uphas the deco of te Cour of Appea. The alin Ceol ase No. 04130415 may proteed ny sotcon ofthe sue Ciel ese No, 067392 not determinate othe gu rlracaneeof pater inthe rina se eee crs. petione Rafael ose-Corsing st negotiated with an obtained fo himself and his mother, Cecil de la Cru (de a Cru] various ‘BS tating #28,000,000.00 from Uniaptl ine (Unieapa). The loans wore secured by areal estate mortgage constituted on 2 parcal pal wa ree ormncna plone rue on ene Se eee ee css pnts eo ae ga un ea cl SSO ei na icsican he tert he propery was uc PRB Bult side), verure pases of Ups ‘eran poe ROTOR the ates rom whom he pepe hd ben aged aus eC TETAS ‘trso9 rls by Dea Cru appeared t be spurious. One pa a: of Apr 19, 1999 that had been pald to and "ese by de ert and Corsng, but the latter inored the demands Fag quit Case, - mpncne reves Ont ame i Gh he same cate Uncapal tte» cima complain for estas traugh fication of publ document against Censing and de a inthe Mata cy Prosecutor's Office. RE PenTenvat ORDER OF SF THOMAS WORE aLL ary Rtas Tasca" 6 Wicy Footer BIMOF MONEY + damages rust 6, 1999, Unieaptal sued Consing in Th Ca ae a nf Sree wth an application fora we of preininaryatachnan a en ease), Tor the recovery ofa sum of money ar ray 27,208, he es ove cry ofa CEMA BSC — echoge ty ia led against Cons ugh, Faisifi cohen On a ats of pe doce ra ra eens Conse and Oe in er SNA Og, wale) “ih wi mie ota en Ne" ctocument ont 2001, Consing reiterated his metion for deferment, ‘the CA. On November 19, 2003, the Prosecution RIC sspeng whe november 26,2003, : mol OSG dla prgucesl question, and on March 18, 200, the RTC deed the Prosecatin’s motion for erro oan ofthe tence ration, thus assed in th reste cathe esos otthe RT in the Matt inl Ske W btn oF SFIS CAO $7 no Ge > CA cnsmics ty orn 08 romp Sanne RD SE UTA ing ETC cena eet oar tthe esiton of the Pag clase predate te Enis ae Me eT ee on eee se Le. whether or nt pre respondent may beheld abe tne peo ae eriethe ult orlnrcence of prise responder Coning mothe Gore ana a Manto cull CO® (Plus 5 ‘Cavite and Makati crimir i humearte 00 October 3, " ‘ ein Mania (ana ces). Wanta Cit Case o : rcaie, FMI] Case, OK Makan Cuil CG PECAN Civil Ochion ucier Ar = caf’ 2 20, an oman fo eta rough bition of pu ecw ed a Shing and ee cw me ficin ims, Cove, dacketes 35 Crimi : 5) Coningfld aretion to adr tbe araigrmert on the ground ofthe enstence of prejuical question in, the pendency of te Pong Snes ‘nwa 27,2000, however, the ETC handling the Cavite emia ae denied Cothgematin ater on tase eninge roe ‘reconsideration. Thereafter, Consing commenced in the CA a special civil action for: ‘certiorari wit wth prayer forthe isuance ofa tempora festering order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction (CAA-G.. SP No, 63712), rea alt qe es The CA rated the TRO on March 28,200, and itr promulgates ts decion os Ma ranting Consing’ fein fr cetora and setting aside the January 27,2000 order ofthe RTC, an permanent enjoin he RIC trom meee oot bearaignment and tril unt the Pasig and Mania cil cases had been finaly decsco, ZRIO anally Ane COvite, Crimnal COse Cemieal Conging's woher 3301 tet satsfeg, the State assailed the decision of the CA in‘this Court (GR. No, 148193), praying forthe reversal ofthe May «eosin ofthe CA. On January 16, 2003, the Court granted the petition for review in GR. No, 168393, and renererd and ct NOLEN conte TRO Inhiscppeston to the State's motion for reansiéeration, Consng contended that the rung in GR. No. 148193 was not nding because GR, No, 148193 volved Plus Biers, which was ferent from Unicaptal, the complainant in the Maka ermal case, He siea hot te ceasion in GR, No. 148193 did not yet become final and executor, and could stil be reversed at ary tine ao thon shold noe ‘anol 3 precedent tobe relieg upon; and that he had acted as an innocent attomey-in-fact for his mother, end should not be hele peseraly lable under a contact that had involved property belonging to his mother a hs principal August 18,2003 the CA amensled ts decision, reversing Se. relied upon the rating in G.R, No. 148193, and held that CAER’SP ho, 63712 similar with the case at bench, The transactions in controversy, the documents volved; the issue ofthe respondents ‘aati forthe evestioned transactions ae all denial nal the proceeding; and ft deals with the same parties wth re scope rite complainant Unieapital fount, the Supreme Court, upon review of CA-G.R. SP No, 63712, Pet 148193, anuary 16, 2003) held that “Cll Case No. 99-95383, "esondent and his mother in el lot that wil Justiy the suspension of the cfimin cls ve of the ‘rementoned cecsion ofthe Supreme Court, We are thus amending Our May 20,2003 decision. ‘insigles2 motion for reconsideration, but the CA denied the motian through the second assailed resolution of December i, 2003 ee, this appeal by petition for review on certiorari. RUE wheter or not the Cerin eversing sel onthe issue of the exetence ofa preusiciol question that warranted the suspension “emeredeg:intheNlacinnalease? 8 WHEE Ge Aca gyyGhion? NO SHE HIATERVAL/ ORDER OF ST. THOMAS MOREAtty tydla Galas sity Relations Transcription lon for review on certiorar is absolutely meritless. deliberately chosen to ignore the firm holding in the ruling in G.R. No. 148193 to the effect that the proceedings in 120 could not be suspended because the Makat civil case was an independent civil action, while the Pasig civil case gosta rn oe ee erin foc Da nes hn tthe Smee ater dtacve wh ent pews of tats complnt ne Mahl carve ta he act ts pes Oa. This ws pre! fom he ce ee cotter coma ect a aed awn, ru, peso vet mane i offering 2s secunity an later objeto sl, a property which they donot own, an fisting to the public spurious ras such, the action was one that cé i w “Article 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the ‘nd shall require only a preponderance of evidence. his well settled that 2 11 defamation, fraud and physical injuries may be independs tuted pursuant to Article sp ofthe Civil Code, an This was precisely pe cour’ theust in GR No, 168193, thus: Moreover, neither is there a prejudicial question if the civil and the criminal aetion car, according to Jaw, proceed Independently of each other. Under Rule 111, Section 3 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, in the cases provided in ‘34 and 2176 of the Chil Code, the independent civil action may be brought by the offended party. t shall however, may the Articles 32, 33, proceed independently ofthe criminal action and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. In no case, offended party recover damages twice forthe same act or omission charged in the criminal action. Inthe instant case, Civil Case by respondent and fsmother in sling the éisputed lot to PB! isan independent civil action ‘As such, it wil not operate as pedi question that wil justify the suspension of the criminal case at bar. entry to Consing’s stance, it was not improper for the CA to apply the ruling in G.R. No, 148193 to his case with Unicapita, for, though the Mana and Makati cv eases involved ferent compliant (Le. us Bulers and Uicapta), the cl actions Pls pital had separately instituted against him were undeniably of similar meld, i.e. larly, the Makati criminal case could not be suspended pending the resolution of the ules ane U Makati cil ease that Unicapital had file. ss far 3s the Pasig cil case is concerned, the isu of Consing’s being 2 mere agent of his mother who should not be criminally able for is mother as principal has also been settled in G.R. No. 148193, to wit: Sars ee nope nchs eine mae ‘ \ ESTION eters (the Inthe case at bar, we Cavite enminal ease) The issue in Ci Case No, SCA 1759 (the Pasig civil case) for Injunctive Relief is whether or not respondent (Consing) merely acted as an agent of his mother, Ceca de la Cruz; while in Civil Case No, $9-95381 (the Manila civil case, for Damages and Attachment, the question is whether respondent and his mother are liable to pay damages and to return the amount paid by 981 forthe purchase of the disputed ft ty. An agent or any person fence, the determination of the issue involved in Chil Case No. ‘may be held liable for conspiring to falsify publie document SCA 1759 for injunctive Relief is itrelovant to the guilt or innocence of the respondent in the criminal case for estafa through falstication of public document,